[PJMillar]

From my point of view, renationalising and investing in British Rail is the most obvious and logical policy step neither party has taken. The McNulty Report, commissioned by the Torys, recently called for the opposite.

Economically, it might not be ideal in the short term but it's sound in the long term. We no longer have a large-scale car industry, and with fuel prices soaring, the age of the car seems to be in permanent decline. Consumers, for want of a better of a word, will have more money to feed our economy as a result. The taxpayer also gets a better deal, surely.

With Network Rail already running the infrestructure, renationalisation would be a careful process, with franchises handed back one-by-one. Privatisation never made sense in this scenario - even Mrs Thatcher didn't agree with it... it just makes no sense to have companies competing on the same system. This is proven by the fact fares have risen above inflation, the opposite of what privatisation was said to achieve. Quality, care, cleanliness has not improved either.

One train manager in a Dispatches documentary from 1990 famously said: "Railways in this country are seen purely in commercial terms, rather than their much wider capability as a tool of social improvement"

More significant investment in creating more high speed trains and reopening lines across the country could kick start the economy.

While nationalisation is an unpopular word, think of the benefits in this specific scenario... I'm not somebody who longs for the revival of the state-owned shipbuilding industry, and God forbid the prospect of rail strikes and demands of higher wages all the time. It will have to be nationalised in a very special way. Police aren't allowed to go on strike, and nor should railway workers.

But when it comes to travel, shouldn't everyone be able to travel fairly and relatively cheaply? Can't Britain invest in something which will hold us in good stead for the next century?

There are many things we shouldn't take from Europe, but the success of the Netherlands, Germany and France in their rail industry is something to really take notice of. They make them, they subsidise them, and people use them because they are of high quality.

If all this were to happen, we'd have a rail industry which employed many more engineers, electricians, drivers, conductors and the like, providing a top quality service independently away from meddling politicians in the Department of Transport. All the government would do would keep the fares low, so as to encourage more people off the roads and onto trains.

Environmentally, economically and socially - surely this all makes sense. But I've put a poll in anyway... feel free to vote and I'd love to hear your thoughts... I challenge anyone to prove me wrong...

[Snagprophet]

Good god no. What do you think trains are for? A transport service? Puh...

[PJMillar]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Good god no. What do you think trains are for? A transport service? Puh...

Witty... I know it's late, but I hope I'll have some much better counter arguments tomorrow, because I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm going to be proved right.

What I've written might be constructively torn apart... I hope not though obviously

[Erich Hartmann]

(Original post by PJMillar)
From my point of view, renationalising and investing in British Rail is the most obvious and logical policy step neither party has taken. The McNulty Report, commissioned by the Torys, recently called for the opposite.

The operating model of the rails in Britain is indeed a bad one. What is allows is for franchise companies to milk the system to the maximum while Network Rail does all the crap.... little wonder it is no where near as good as the Swiss or German railways.

However nationalisation might not be the answer due to the appalling quality of the civil servants who are mostly scumbags.

(Original post by PJMillar)
Economically, it might not be ideal in the short term but it's sound in the long term. We no longer have a large-scale car industry, and with fuel prices soaring, the age of the car seems to be in permanent decline. Consumers, for want of a better of a word, will have more money to feed our economy as a result. The taxpayer also gets a better deal, surely.

It is quite easy for the whole system to be nationalized again, essentially when the franchise contract runs out all they have to do is not give it out again.

While it is indeed true that Britain doesn't have any large-scale homegrown car producers since the demise of the crap car maker called British Leyland, today more cars are built in Britain than in the 70s and 80s as there are plenty of Japanese cars that are assembled in Britain, there are also plenty of BMW MINIs that are being built in Britain. MG though now under Chinese ownership will eventually grow to be a big scale industry. While the companies may not be British owned, there are still plenty of cars built and these cars do so because there is a fairly large consumer base and they are attracted to the supply chain that exist.

Fuel? Sure it is getting expensive, but if you start reducing the number of car buyers many new technologies can't come to market, many technologies can't be made cheaper due to low volume and it will essentially mean most of these industries would then go to Germany. If these industries close due to more people taking the trains and not wanting a car then the business case for having a production facility in Britain is lost..... now don't tell me all these workers can then be absorbed into the railways because in reality there are very little new rails that can be built.

Finally it should be remembered that part of the reasons for high fuel cost is the effects of taxation on fuels, not really due to the high cost of oil itself. Also cars today are becoming far more economical so in time to come a standard normal family car will be able to achieve 1l/100km easily.

(Original post by PJMillar)
With Network Rail already running the infrestructure, renationalisation would be a careful process, with franchises handed back one-by-one. Privatisation never made sense in this scenario - even Mrs Thatcher didn't agree with it... it just makes no sense to have companies competing on the same system. This is proven by the fact fares have risen above inflation, the opposite of what privatisation was said to achieve. Quality, care, cleanliness has not improved either.

Actually I still remember the trains in Britain before privatization.... delays were a common place and rail strikes weren't any anomaly. Mrs Thatcher didn't agree to it due to the political cost it wasn't really due to any other reasons.

But one thing for sure ever since privatization services have improved a lot more than before 95% of all trains are on time 95% of the time. Sometimes it isn't the train companies fault that trains are late, remember they too have their own targets and KPIs to meet.

Somehow I doubt nationalization will bring about a more efficient service, if going by the banks are anything to go by, somehow I think the only thing that would happen is sure fares may stabilize but instead of it being reinvested it is going to go towards a few scums getting big huge bonuses instead.

(Original post by PJMillar)
I quote one train manager in a Dispatches documentary from 1990: "Railways in this country are seen purely in commercial terms, rather than their much wider capability as a tool of social improvement"

Isn't that everything in Britain? In reality for anything to be successful it will need to have an business and economic case to it, else it is going to be a big black money pit.... you don't want Britain to be the next Greece now do you?

Sorry but I don't want my taxes going towards something I don't use and won't use. If and when I want to use it then I will pay for it through the ticket prices. Seems much fairer.

(Original post by PJMillar)
More significant investment in creating more high speed trains and reopening lines across the country could kick start the economy.

There are better ways to kick start the economy and the country doesn't even have the capability or the technologies to build a high speed railway....... more than likely it will contribute to the German economy, just like the Thameslink. The current HS2 in itself is hitting too many bottle necks and from what is being published it is unlikely to be successful and more than likely it will become one of the most expensive toys the government ever built that more than likely would then be sold off to someone else.... thanks but no thanks.

(Original post by PJMillar)

While nationalisation is an unpopular word, think of the benefits in this specific scenario... I'm not somebody who longs for the revival of the state-owned shipbuilding industry, and God forbid the prospect of rail strikes and demands of higher wages all the time. It will have to be nationalised in a very special way. Police aren't allowed to go on strike, and nor should railway workers.

OK, firstly where is the money going to come from? Have you seen our budget deficits lately? Seen how much in debt our government is?

Somehow I doubt your envisaged nationalization program could work, there are very powerful unions you are dealing with.

(Original post by PJMillar)
But when it comes to travel, shouldn't everyone be able to travel fairly and relatively cheaply? Can't Britain invest in something which will hold us in good stead for the next century?

Nope... why should it be cheap to travel? It needs to be sustainable and cheap doesn't mean sustainable..... while I don't think it should be so expensive to the point only the rich could afford it, there certainly is no reason for it to be cheap.... where it is too cheap too many people will use it and cause overcrowding, then you will need to build even more trains.

(Original post by PJMillar)
There are many things which we shouldn't take from Europe, but the success of the Netherlands, Germany and France in their rail industry is something to really take notice of. They make them, they subsidise them, and people use them because they are of high quality.

Ahhh... the common misconception again.

First off, Netherlands is a small but densely populated country. Britain on the other hand is a big country with densely populated cities with massive urban sprawls due to the years of poor planning.

Germany is in the midst of privatizing their rails

France indeed has a good rail network, but the downside it also has some of the highest tax rates in the world.... no thanks.

(Original post by PJMillar)
If all this were to happen, we'd have a rail industry which employed many more engineers, electricians, drivers, conductors and the like, providing a top quality service independently away from meddling politicians in the Department of Transport. All the government would do would keep the fares low, so as to encourage more people off the roads and onto trains.

Somehow that model will not work. If you are going to have government intervention there will also be government management which essentially means the whole system gets politicized and become crap again like most things in Britain.

Also engineers don't just fall from the sky..... rail engineers take a long time to train and they cost a lot of money to hire. There is only 1 or 2 more train factories in Britain 1 is the Bombadier one which most likely will close down very soon and the other

There is only 1 train factory remaining in Britain it is owned by a Canadian company called Bombadier, they couldn't even get the contract for the Thameslink which went to the Germans.... where are you going to get the money and expertise to set up a new train factory? Whose technology/patents?

(Original post by PJMillar)
Environmentally, economically and socially - surely this all makes sense. But I've put a poll in anyway... feel free to vote and I'd love to hear your thoughts... I challenge anyone to prove me wrong...

Mile for mile, a train isn't more environmentally friendly than a Chevrolet Volt or a Vauxhall Ampera.

Economically? You haven't presented a viable economic case for it either.

Socially? Why do you think giving plebs the chance to go on trains for less is a good thing?

[C_B_C]

(Original post by PJMillar)
From my point of view, renationalising and investing in British Rail is the most obvious and logical policy step neither party has taken. The McNulty Report, commissioned by the Torys, recently called for the opposite.

Economically, it might not be ideal in the short term but it's sound in the long term. We no longer have a large-scale car industry, and with fuel prices soaring, the age of the car seems to be in permanent decline. Consumers, for want of a better of a word, will have more money to feed our economy as a result. The taxpayer also gets a better deal, surely.
...
Environmentally, economically and socially - surely this all makes sense. But I've put a poll in anyway... feel free to vote and I'd love to hear your thoughts... I challenge anyone to prove me wrong...

Though each individual topic is down to personal opinion, I believe 100% in long-term investments.
Sadly, democracy hardly leaves space for these.
People want changes and they always want them now, and politicians can only impress with over-night changes that tend to have no long-term value what so ever.

Luckily, due to the long duration of this economic crisis we're going though, I have the hope that it'll become apparent to voters that this situation can't be solved over night, and that long-term investments (possibly, such as the one you suggest) are the only way forwards.

I'd pos rep, but reached my limit today
I'll remind myself tomorrow.

[C_B_C]

(Original post by Erich Hartmann)
However nationalisation might not be the answer due to the appalling quality of the civil servants who are mostly scumbags.

This is an extreme over-simplification you're making.
The quality of the railway service (which I personaly think has a bad reputation due to the amount of people who have nothing better to whinge about) doesn't simply lie with the quality of the work of technicians, Engineers and managers, but also with the quality of the infrastructure, the complexity of the networks (which, similarly to the airspace, is more and more ridiculous as you approach London).
Also, I've personally found many civil servants much more enthusiastic and hard working than other office workers I know.

While it is indeed true that Britain doesn't have any large-scale homegrown car producers since the demise of the crap car maker called British Leyland, today more cars are built in Britain than in the 70s and 80s as there are plenty of Japanese cars that are assembled in Britain, there are also plenty of BMW MINIs that are being built in Britain. MG though now under Chinese ownership will eventually grow to be a big scale industry. While the companies may not be British owned, there are still plenty of cars built and these cars do so because there is a fairly large consumer base and they are attracted to the supply chain that exist.
...
Finally it should be remembered that part of the reasons for high fuel cost is the effects of taxation on fuels, not really due to the high cost of oil itself. Also cars today are becoming far more economical so in time to come a standard normal family car will be able to achieve 1l/100km easily.

Decent opinion, but I tend to disagree
The car industry isn't expanding, and hasn't been for the past 2-3 years. Especially in the UK.

To simplify, the UK has 60+ million people, but half the space than most EU countries (who tend to have between 40 and 60 million people).
This leads to harsh levels of traffic, which leads to high taxes, insurance and price of fuel.
Also, with the enviromental concern spreading, more and more taxes on fuel are being put in place.

This all overcomes the fact that cars are more and more efficient (which is definitely true).

Less and less people find themselvs affording a car, including myself: it's just not worth it.
And though there are a few of us willing to cycle 20 miles a day, most people turn to public transport.
The use of buses, coaches and trains is going to increase in the next few years.

[Aphotic Cosmos]

I do believe that the railways should be nationalised again. Fortunately the current system was set up so that renationalisation would be a pretty simply process - let each franchise expire and reincorporate it into a British Rail structure at the end.

Right now we're paying more for the railways than we were under the Major government, but without any correspondent improvements in any part of the network. We are still massively subsidising the railways, so the question is why are we still paying to operate them as a for-profit enterprise for private shareholders when they haven't delivered any benefits to us? We could actually save money by centralising administration in this case. A fully private system is going the wrong way - there is demand for railway connections to a lot of places, notably those which formerly had stations that later closed thanks to Beeching, but many of these towns and villages are just too small and a profit-making line isn't possible. The social need of these communities for good transportation is ignored because of their inability to generate profit, which cyclically leads to a greater deficit in transportation capacity and thus even less potential for profit, compounding the problem. Investing in infrastructure in places like the Highlands and Wales creates more jobs in the short term in construction and creates better linked communities in the long term, improving the employability and search radius of the populace.

The rail network must be planned strategically rather than divided into hodgepodge little TOC areas.

[Keckers]

Nationalisation is not the answer.

What needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the way rail leasing is carried out. The current system is a mess.

[MacDaddi]

As much as a Libertarian i'd like to see the private sector get a grip - really the only way to sort this mess out is to nationalise it again. From there we can sort things out.

[Morgsie]

The way the Tories privtiesed the railways back in the early 1990s was wrong, there is a lot of arguments which support this view including Christian Wolmar.

Labour while in power could have Renationalised the railways but did not.

EU Law is a factor.
Directive 91/440 and subsequent Directives, Known as Rail Packages

[tehFrance]

Nationalisation is not the way to go about things and even if people were to get this moving, EU Law prohibits it.

[Erich Hartmann]

(Original post by C_B_C)
Also, I've personally found many civil servants much more enthusiastic and hard working than other office workers I know.

I'm pretty sure I've dealt with far more government departments and agencies in my lifetime than many of the forumers on here put together.... while it is true some can be rather enthusiastic, this is the minority.... it wasn't until recently due in part to the recession that their application pool had increased allowing them to select the cream rather than the usual junks that they get in there.

(Original post by C_B_C)
The car industry isn't expanding, and hasn't been for the past 2-3 years. Especially in the UK.

Is this an opinion or fact? If it is the latter any evidence to back this up?

(Original post by C_B_C)
To simplify, the UK has 60+ million people, but half the space than most EU countries (who tend to have between 40 and 60 million people).

This leads to harsh levels of traffic, which leads to high taxes, insurance and price of fuel.

There are many countries in the world that are far more densely populated than Britain, it is the 8th largest country in the EU behind the likes of Spain, Germany, Italy. Even by population density it isn't the most dense, better planning could change things significantly.

Insurance rates are high due to other factors, Germany has more cars on the roads and it even has more accidents by the kms travelled... yet their insurance prices are at least 1/3 lower.

(Original post by C_B_C)
Also, with the enviromental concern spreading, more and more taxes on fuel are being put in place.

This all overcomes the fact that cars are more and more efficient (which is definitely true).

Cars have improved a lot in recent years and they are also a lot cleaner than they used to be and would only get cleaner.

While you're at it you should check how much CO2 is released when you operate a train.

(Original post by C_B_C)
Less and less people find themselvs affording a car, including myself: it's just not worth it.

And though there are a few of us willing to cycle 20 miles a day, most people turn to public transport.
The use of buses, coaches and trains is going to increase in the next few years.

Again seems like statistics doesn't agree with you.

[gradjobplease]

Beecham happened while the railways were nationalised. And i would be very doubtful that in the current climate nationalisation would lead to increased investment. As you mentioned you also might end up with a nationwide bob crow situation, holding railways ransom for higher wages and increasing operating costs.

[C_B_C]

(Original post by Erich Hartmann)
I'm pretty sure I've dealt with far more government departments and agencies in my lifetime than many of the forumers on here put together.... while it is true some can be rather enthusiastic, this is the minority.... it wasn't until recently due in part to the recession that their application pool had increased allowing them to select the cream rather than the usual junks that they get in there.



Is this an opinion or fact? If it is the latter any evidence to back this up?



There are many countries in the world that are far more densely populated than Britain, it is the 8th largest country in the EU behind the likes of Spain, Germany, Italy. Even by population density it isn't the most dense, better planning could change things significantly.

Insurance rates are high due to other factors, Germany has more cars on the roads and it even has more accidents by the kms travelled... yet their insurance prices are at least 1/3 lower.





Cars have improved a lot in recent years and they are also a lot cleaner than they used to be and would only get cleaner.

While you're at it you should check how much CO2 is released when you operate a train.



Again seems like statistics doesn't agree with you.

Though you're probably right, you're not very good at discussions mate.

I've always been a fan of public transport. Cars are just another luxury that people seem to demand from life (and, somehow, off the government). And though giving up to them wouldn't be the end of the world, people are too scared to even try.

I read about the Automotive industry in a management book I was reading for University a few months ago, before starting work.

Here is something that you'll find interesting: it agrees with your point of view (and doesn't conflict mine either).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-Why-none.html

[PJMillar]

(Original post by gradjobplease)
Beecham happened while the railways were nationalised. And i would be very doubtful that in the current climate nationalisation would lead to increased investment. As you mentioned you also might end up with a nationwide bob crow situation, holding railways ransom for higher wages and increasing operating costs.

That's the most major stumbling block in my view - because say in 50 years time (and it would take that long if nationalisation and investment was done carefully) we had strikes and increased wage demands while

Because, assuming there are many many more people travelling on trains, the big transport unions will realise their power to hold the country to standstill and use it to demand more wages. It's amazing how 'better working conditions', a goal which the trade unions originally stood for, wouldn't necessarily be important.

The ITV strikes/wage demands in the 1970s/early 80s were for exactly the same reason... nothing to do with fairness.

I would only renationalise the railways if there was a way of giving British Rail an amount of independence in the salaries it gives its workers, and banning strikes in the same way they are banned for the police. That's extremely unrealistic though.

[Lord Jon]

I think its a good idea tbh.

Shame EU Law prohibits it.

(Original post by Erich Hartmann)
The operating model of the rails in Britain is indeed a bad one. What is allows is for franchise companies to milk the system to the maximum while Network Rail does all the crap.... little wonder it is no where near as good as the Swiss or German railways.

However nationalisation might not be the answer due to the appalling quality of the civil servants who are mostly scumbags.



It is quite easy for the whole system to be nationalized again, essentially when the franchise contract runs out all they have to do is not give it out again.

While it is indeed true that Britain doesn't have any large-scale homegrown car producers since the demise of the crap car maker called British Leyland, today more cars are built in Britain than in the 70s and 80s as there are plenty of Japanese cars that are assembled in Britain, there are also plenty of BMW MINIs that are being built in Britain. MG though now under Chinese ownership will eventually grow to be a big scale industry. While the companies may not be British owned, there are still plenty of cars built and these cars do so because there is a fairly large consumer base and they are attracted to the supply chain that exist.

Fuel? Sure it is getting expensive, but if you start reducing the number of car buyers many new technologies can't come to market, many technologies can't be made cheaper due to low volume and it will essentially mean most of these industries would then go to Germany. If these industries close due to more people taking the trains and not wanting a car then the business case for having a production facility in Britain is lost..... now don't tell me all these workers can then be absorbed into the railways because in reality there are very little new rails that can be built.

Finally it should be remembered that part of the reasons for high fuel cost is the effects of taxation on fuels, not really due to the high cost of oil itself. Also cars today are becoming far more economical so in time to come a standard normal family car will be able to achieve 1l/100km easily.



Actually I still remember the trains in Britain before privatization.... delays were a common place and rail strikes weren't any anomaly. Mrs Thatcher didn't agree to it due to the political cost it wasn't really due to any other reasons.

But one thing for sure ever since privatization services have improved a lot more than before 95% of all trains are on time 95% of the time. Sometimes it isn't the train companies fault that trains are late, remember they too have their own targets and KPIs to meet.

Somehow I doubt nationalization will bring about a more efficient service, if going by the banks are anything to go by, somehow I think the only thing that would happen is sure fares may stabilize but instead of it being reinvested it is going to go towards a few scums getting big huge bonuses instead.



Isn't that everything in Britain? In reality for anything to be successful it will need to have an business and economic case to it, else it is going to be a big black money pit.... you don't want Britain to be the next Greece now do you?

Sorry but I don't want my taxes going towards something I don't use and won't use. If and when I want to use it then I will pay for it through the ticket prices. Seems much fairer.




There are better ways to kick start the economy and the country doesn't even have the capability or the technologies to build a high speed railway....... more than likely it will contribute to the German economy, just like the Thameslink. The current HS2 in itself is hitting too many bottle necks and from what is being published it is unlikely to be successful and more than likely it will become one of the most expensive toys the government ever built that more than likely would then be sold off to someone else.... thanks but no thanks.



OK, firstly where is the money going to come from? Have you seen our budget deficits lately? Seen how much in debt our government is?

Somehow I doubt your envisaged nationalization program could work, there are very powerful unions you are dealing with.




Nope... why should it be cheap to travel? It needs to be sustainable and cheap doesn't mean sustainable..... while I don't think it should be so expensive to the point only the rich could afford it, there certainly is no reason for it to be cheap.... where it is too cheap too many people will use it and cause overcrowding, then you will need to build even more trains.




Ahhh... the common misconception again.

First off, Netherlands is a small but densely populated country. Britain on the other hand is a big country with densely populated cities with massive urban sprawls due to the years of poor planning.

Germany is in the midst of privatizing their rails

France indeed has a good rail network, but the downside it also has some of the highest tax rates in the world.... no thanks.



Somehow that model will not work. If you are going to have government intervention there will also be government management which essentially means the whole system gets politicized and become crap again like most things in Britain.

Also engineers don't just fall from the sky..... rail engineers take a long time to train and they cost a lot of money to hire. There is only 1 or 2 more train factories in Britain 1 is the Bombadier one which most likely will close down very soon and the other

There is only 1 train factory remaining in Britain it is owned by a Canadian company called Bombadier, they couldn't even get the contract for the Thameslink which went to the Germans.... where are you going to get the money and expertise to set up a new train factory? Whose technology/patents?



Mile for mile, a train isn't more environmentally friendly than a Chevrolet Volt or a Vauxhall Ampera.

Economically? You haven't presented a viable economic case for it either.

Socially? Why do you think giving plebs the chance to go on trains for less is a good thing?

You need to learn how to use spoilers

[PJMillar]

Can't EU laws be shunned without complication?... France and Germany have. Surely the Torys are just reading the law book just to get one over on Labour/reflect their ideological plan to exercise further cuts on the railways without realising its potential.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by PJMillar)
Can't EU laws be shunned without complication?... France and Germany have. Surely the Torys are just reading the law book just to get one over on Labour/reflect their ideological plan to exercise further cuts on the railways without realising its potential.

Germany is part private and part state owned, France is being sued I believe for not following EU directives.

[PJMillar]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Germany is part private and part state owned, France is being sued I believe for not following EU directives.

Source for France being sued by EU? (I can't find anything)

[PJ991]

Can I just ask about this EU rule?

The Government runs East Coast. Does that contravene it? What about Trenitalia, SNCF, Deutsche Bahn, SNCB, RENFE? They're all state owned. There are probably more too.